Dave Winer raises the topic about the accuracy of topics in Wikipedia. He uses the history of podcasting entry to point out that information about his own early involvement in developing what would become known as podcasting had been “carefully rewritten” and eliminated from Wikipedia. (Note: when I checked the entry this morning, mention of Winer had been evidently re-edited back into the Wikipedia article).

For those of you not familiar with the very public feud between Winer and Adam Curry, please wait for the upcoming made-for-TV movie of the week.

Seriously, though, Winer raises a very important topic about the validity and integrity of topical entries in Wikipedia. The premise behind Wikipedia is that it’s “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. Collaborative authorship is great and tools like the Wikipedia have great potential. However, how can an unsuspecting reader know whether the information contained in Wikipedia is correct?

As a librarian I’m very concerned about ensuring that quality content can be found on the Web. For years librarians have been advocating the concept of information literacy which is aimed at ensuring that students understand how to evaluate information resources, particularly online resources. Of course, information literacy is simply a part of what higher education has always tried to do: develop the capacity within a student to think analytically and critically about any topic/situation that the student might encounter.

In the realm of scholarly communications, peer-review and editorial review by a set of established scholars have been the criteria for identifying a work as intellectually legitimate.

Wikipedia, like blogs and so much of the Internet, depends upon self-governing peer-review to point out flaws in arguments and reasoning. In some matters, particularly high profile topics, this self regulating approach works quite well. However, in other topics, particularly among lower profile issues, the safety valve of net-based peer review may be missing. On the Internet anyone can establish him or herself as the expert and it’s up to others on the net to validate that person’s authority.

Despite the extensive nature of the net and the range of topics that can be found through any Web search, I’m not yet convinced that the self-governing approach to information validity can be achieved. Of course, there will be those who will argue that all information and knowledge is biased towards certain perspectives. I don’t want to get into those philosophical issues at this time. The important issue, for me, is how to those who do not think so analytically about information understand whether something he reads on the net is true?

There have been some calls for librarians and the scholarly community to get more systematically involved in supporting the intellectual efforts of Wikipedia. I think that is a very good approach. Many librarians tend to react negatively towards freely available, non peer-reviewed information on the net out of fears stemming from information literacy. However, we must accept that resources such as Wikipedia are here to stay and that people will use Wikipedia for their research.

Librarians must help to ensure that information in Wikipedia (and elsewhere on the net) is of a high quality. Also, librarians must incorporate the use of Wikipedia into their instructional programs just as they do for other encylopedic works. Indeed, it might be more important to inform students of specific aspects of Wikipedia rather than many other subscription-based reference works. For its the former, not the latter, that students will continue most likely continue to use throughout their lifetimes.